0
What else can I help you with?
What evidence do global warming deniers give that global warming is a hoax?
1) if the ice melts in the northern/ southern region of the world, the water level wont rise. BECAUSE that water is froze, it is expanded.
How do you explain to the person that despite the positive results this is a pseudoscientific claim?
The best way is to prove that positive results that the person says he has is from a document or newspaper or magazine that these are not from peer reviewed journals. He has to back up the ideas with information from a scientist in that field. I have had a lot of problems with climate change deniers. If I show information from peer reviewed articles, the person will come up with one from some off the wall magazine. I also find that some people like this like to just argue for argument sakes or that they like to have fun with you. Some just have no clue as to how science works. I also found that the more you try to explain it, the more their minds become frozen. There is no way to unfreeze them, either.
Could zero waste stop global warming?
Probably not. If we recycled everything possible so we had no trash at all. We still would use energy (from burning fossil fuels) to heat our homes, cook and produce our food and move about. Our contribution to global warming is mostly CO2 Carbon dioxide. We burn fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). We eat carbon in the form of food, breathe oxygen and with digestion produce CO2 and Methane. Both being contributors to warming. Methane being 20 times more destructive than CO2. Methane is also produced when organic material like grass clippings rot. It is the major component of natural gas. More people on the planet requires more food and heat for warmth. But the Earth has a weapon to balance things out. Vegetation consumes CO2 and produces oxygen. Plankton in the oceans produce the most. Plankton is also the most vulnerable to destruction by warm water and harmful cosmic rays. The polar oceans produce more plankton than the warm waters on both sides of the equator. That is one reason why there are more fish there. There are experts that dispute Global Warming is caused by humans. The evidence says the opposite. We are warming faster than ever before. If you check the deniers' trail you will find that most if not all are recipients of money from the coal industry which has the most to lose by being replaced with green energy. Besides recycling, the best thing we can do is plant trees, millions of them. Most of the US except the plains and deserts were covered with huge forests before the Europeans settled the land. They cut the trees, used the timber for buildings and turned the forests into farm land. There are plenty of places we can replant indigenous trees. Any place the sun shines where a tree won't be a hazard and has decent soil will do. Not only will a tree remove perhaps tons of CO2 in its lifetime but will produce more oxygen and keep the space underneath the branches cooler.
Why can humans not be blamed for global warming?
Sorry, Global warming is being caused by humans. Every country in the world joined the Paris Agreement (2016) setting goals to try to keep global temperatures rising above 2 degrees Celsius. They all accept that global warming is being caused by human deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.
How does climate affect people of australia?
An Australian Opinion In the northern hemisphere, the global warming of the earth has resulted in floods, whereas in the southern hemisphere this has resulted in the opposite: drought. Drought is not just a bit of a drop in rainfall for a while: it is a major (or even total) reduction over a large ares for years on end. Are there any effects of global warming on Australia? These answers are supposed to be neutral and balanced. Well, that was the neutral paragraph. I am an Australian living in central Victoria, so I have just as much right to be heard about what is happening as do the deniers of global-warming. If some can deny that actual events such as the Holocaust never actually happened, or were not as bad as they were made out to be, just tell those deniers to talk to the people who survived. This is the same mind-set that appeased Hitler pre-war rather than face facts as that would mean having to actually do something about it. In exactly the same way, this is the same mind-set which denies that global warming actually exists at all. It doesn't matter what you call it. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist - a refusal to believe is not the same as proof: it can be a selfish intellectual excuse for doing nothing, as it is in the case of global warming. Truth is not decided by majority opinion but by the actual facts. Some say that there is no such thing as global warming as it is all cyclical, and that we are just returning to what it used to be like. This is a fancy excuse for saying "She'll be right, mate: it was like this this a few years ago, but it'll recover - it always does", and is sometimes re-phrased as "Trust me - I'm an expert!" (Whenever you hear anybody say this, just remember that experts also said the Titanic was unsinkable too!). Many people blindly trust what the media says and that it must be the truth but, as Hitler said, if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it - especially if it is a big one. The media has much to blame for the continuing confusion among the public about global warming, and a good example of one of these deniers is Andrew Bolt of the 'Heraldsun' daily newspaper in Australia. In his article 'Dryness as usual' on October 27th 2006, (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,20650872-5006029,00.html) he does three things which are typical of similar articles by global-warming sceptics or deniers :- 1. He does not deny the effects shown by the warming of the globe, and does not give the causes of these same effects shown by this warming of the globe, but still refuses to call it global warming. 2. The liberal use of the word "may' to qualify his comments, such as: "In fact, this may not even be a drought at all. Rainfall figures show we may be simply going back to the just-as-dry weather of the not-so-distant past."By removing the word "may" it transforms them into categorical black-and-white statements. He could say he was compelled to put these in for legal reasons in case of litigation, but the whole tenor of the article is one of outright denial of global warming . If he actually believes something he should have the courage to say it outright without equivocation. Note that he does not actually deny the facts: what he does is to (mis)interpret those facts to suit his argument. 3. Uses statistics to make it all sound very plausible "Here are the figures that tell that story.From 1900 to 1945, Victoria's average annual rainfall was 603mm. Then came 50 years of plenty, with average falls of 671mm. .But in the past decade [ie 1996-2006]our rainfall has dropped back to around the average of those pre-war years -- or 591mm."and..."Our average rainfall now of 591mm is still way above the panting lows recorded from 1936 to 1945 -- an average of just 543mm. And no one back then wailed in the dust about global warming."Statistics can be used to prove anything you wish by selecting only the parts that fit your particular argument, and using or extrapolating this part to represent the whole. Don't confuse 'averages' with 'actual': they are not the same thing. For a real example of this, compare the average rainfall for Bendigo with the actual rainfall I received in Bendigo in my own raingauge. The average rainfall for Bendigo is given by, among others, the Australian Government for the 'Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation', and under 'Vital Statistics' for Bendigo (http://www.wineaustralia.com/Australia/Default.aspx?tabid=4513) the rainfall records from the Bendigo Prison show ; Annual rainfall 551mm (21.7inches) Mean January Temperature 21.6 deg. Centigrade (70.5 deg. Fahrenheit)These are scientifically accurate figures and cannot be denied. There is nothing wrong with these facts as long as it is realized that they are rainfall averages taken for the period from 1862 to 1992. The actual rainfall I received for the 12 months from May 2007 to May 2008 was 323mm (12.7inches), or 58 per cent of that 130-year average. Although global warming was known of scientifically before 1992, it was still a metereological conundrum. Global warming has only been widely known in the last few years, it wasn't mentioned in the general media until about 2003, and although my big 'Collins' Dictionary of 1986 has just about everything else of note , it doesn't even have 'global warming' in it which means that at the time it can't have been considered very important. To use pre-1992 statistics to try to prove that, because the possibility of global warming then was problematical and statistically-unprovable so it couldn't possibly exist in 1992, and that it therefore can't possibly exist now even though the weather patterns have changed beyond the statistical norm is outright lying, deceit; and manipulation of data: if someone used the same reasoning for an exam in "Statistics 101" they would fail. Since it was in the period from 1993 to 2008 that the effects of global warming became really noticeable, to not include those statistics for that same period renders any results meaningless. It is wrong to deliberately misinterpret facts. I grew up in the Mallee in the 1960's and and there were only two seasons: hot and hotter; when the temperature inside the school classroom reached 100Degrees Fahrenheit (about 38 degrees Centigrade) we were sent home because of the heat . The weather and rainfall in Bendigo now is the same as it was in the Mallee then, and the rain that we used to get now falls in Bass Strait instead. There was no airconditioning then, but now it is not a luxury: it is almost essential. The heat then was a clear heat, whereas now the sun has become more intense with the heat feeling hotter : I don't know if that makes sense, but now I actually become sunburnt after a much shorter time when out in the sun, and this not unique . The seasons have changed: now there are only summer and winter, because to all intents and purposes autumn and spring only exist for a few days. In the "Yates Garden Guide" of both 1984 (p.11) and 1994 (p.3) Bendigo is shown as being on the border between the "Temperate" and "Cold" zones, and Melbourne [the capital of Victoria located on the coast at the top of Port Philip Bay] as being in the Cold zone. For all intents and purposes, at that time Bendigo and Melbourne were in the same climate-band for gardening purposes. Today, the people of Melbourne certainly wouldn't consider themselves as being in the "Cold" zone, but rather as dry and sub-tropical zone but without the rain. Because it is hotter and drier with less rain, water usage restrictions have been introduced. (See the article "Water restrictions in Australia" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_restrictions_in_Australia for details). There were initially 4 levels of restriction introduced, with variations between States. Basically, Stage 1 banned sprinklers, and Stage 4 banned all outside watering. Melbourne has been on stage 3A water restrictions since April 2007 , and the only reason they were not put on Stage 4 restrictions was because it was political suicide, so a new category was introduced to accomodate the wishes of the loudest complainers/whingers. This preferential treatment was commonly seen as selfish and unfair because other areas under more severe restrictions were doing it tough. For example, Bendigo had been on Stage 4 restrictions since October 2006, meaning all outside watering is banned, while some areas in Queensland are on Stage 7, with no external water use at all. These Stage 4 restrictions in Bendigo mean dead nature strips (this is the area between the path in front of a house and the kerb of the road), dead gardens), dead lawns, dirty houses (because weatherboards etc cannot be washed down), the use of "grey" water on the garden (water from the washing machine and shower that once went down the drain ) and 'Shadecloth' everywhere. (Shadecloth is an open-weave polyester cloth used externally that cuts out up to 90 per cent of the sun's rays, reduces the wind flow-through, and is used to shield or cover things such as gardens, trees, windows, walls, and verandahs from the direct effects of the sun and stop them from drying out too much.) Unless you watered your own plants and trees yourself using your own water, they died: (even roses died, and they are pretty tough.) The only reason my fruit trees in the orchard and my wife's ferns in the fernery actually survived at all was because we used our own tankwater. Because 2005/2006 had been noticeably hotter and more stressful on the garden, for the last two years I had been filling up empty 2-litre plastic fruit-juice bottles from our (small) tank. This meant that the trees in the orchard could be watered via the agricultural-pipe going straight to their roots, and the ferns watered via the wick their self-watering containers. Even so, several trees have not recovered, and some ferns died. Other effects of this global warming are: -Dry and hard football grounds, with more injuries , and many grounds unable to be played on at all. - Synthetic turf common on Bowling grounds instead of grass, and those with grass , such as Bendigo North, having installed a 20,000+ litre watertank. - Less rainfall means less food able or suitable to be grown. - Less rainfall means less milk because of a shrinking area suitable for dairying. -More skin cancer -Vitamin D deficiency due to reduced sun exposure,leading directly to increased Rickets and possibly increased MS. - More children unfit and not healthy because they not playing outside. - Less healthy diet because of a lesser variety of foods, -What food is available is more is more-expensive, so 'junk' food is bought instead. - More heart problems -More obesity -More erratic and unseasonal rain, resulting in some areas getting deluged with rain and consequently flooding because they have had too much. -There is only a finite amount of rain able to be produced in the weather system of the entire world, and it seems that the Northern hemisphere gets too much rain resulting in widespread flooding, while the Southern hemisphere seems to get too little resulting in drought. I'm sure there are more effects, but I think that is enough for a while.
What is the ISBN of The Deniers?
The ISBN of The Deniers is 9780980076318.
How many pages does The Deniers have?
The Deniers has 239 pages.
When was The Deniers created?
The Deniers was created on 2008-04-01.
How many oz in 260 grams?
260g = 9.17oz
Global warming deniers and evolution deniers?
Denialists of all shades share a determination not to face reality.
What coin is worth three deniers?
liard
What are the ratings and certificates for Les deniers du culte - 1997 TV?
Les deniers du culte - 1997 TV is rated/received certificates of: Australia:MA
How do you get deniers in yogbox mod?
Sell stuff to the villagers
What is a french coin worth 3 deniers?
A French coin worth 3 deniers would be a low-value coin from the medieval period. Deniers were the primary currency in France during that time, and a coin worth 3 deniers would have been of small denomination, typically made of copper or silver. The exact value in modern terms would be difficult to determine as it would depend on various factors such as the condition and rarity of the coin.
What has the author Claudia Deniers written?
Claudia Deniers has written: 'Die Darstellung des Alters im Werk T.S. Eliots' -- subject(s): Characters, Old age in literature, Older people
What is the name of a French coin worth 3 deniers?
You may be referring to the liard coin.
Who were some of the key people who dispute what holocaust deniers say?
David Irving. The deniers say that the gas chambers were really just showers, and that the poison used to kill Jews was actually used to kill lice. They also say that deaths were due to disease because of the lack of vaccines and also because of starvation. Holocaust deniers think the the Jews doctored photos from the Holocaust. Look up Lipstadt v. Irving.
